Does a Creator Make Sense?

[Argy Lacedom]

In this thread ... http://www.christianforums.com/t7550830/ tou2009, wondered whether they might join the SDA church and said...

In terms of the origins of the universe, I lean towards a creator but again I am unsure.

This is something that I once thought had an obvious answer - yes. But I have since realised that that is not so. The question "Is there a creator of the universe?" actually doesn't any make sense at all.

It is like asking "How late is the colour yellow"? A non sequitur.

There are two reasons for this. First up, by definition the universe is all that exists. A creator is part of everything that exists. That means the universe must somehow have "created" itself. Absurd.

The second problem comes about by virtue of the meaning of the word "create". Creation is a process of cause and effect. Aquinas famously argued from this that there must be an "uncaused cause" that started everything off. (Of course the uncaused cause is supposed to be god.)

Without time to separate cause and effect the concept of cause and effect (hence creation) becomes meaningless. In other words, the idea that something could create/cause something else without the existence of time is illogical. It is therefore silly to talk about the "creation" of time.

Now, here's the rub. Einstein discovered that time and space are inextricably linked in four dimensions that have come to be known as spacetime. Without space there can be no time and without time there can be no space. Because there is no time outside our spacetime it is meaningless to claim that our spacetime was "created".

 

[Tim Myers]

Have you factored in your vantage point in regard to your hypotheses and subsequent conclusions??.......

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

By trying to apply our understanding of physics to the universe, we cannot hope to refute the creator/creation story. Once again Argy, I will bring you to the concept of having faith as the key to all understanding.

People today have faith in evolutionary science even though it is constantly changing and most of it's tenets can be easily disproven. What was once sacred truth in the scientific field is now considered anathema. But people would rather put their trust and faith into it than to believe what the unchanging Word of God has said for thousands of years. There is a strong segment of science dedicated to creationism and it can show through other branches of science the absolute validity of the literal creation story.

I'm not sure of your contradiction between there being a creator and a creation... the two to me are as logical a coupling as there can be. To say something was created with no creator makes no sense. Once again, our finite minde=s tring to grasp the concepts of infinite knowledge.

 

[elopez]

In this thread ... http://www.christianforums.com/t7550830/ tou2009, wondered whether they might join the SDA church and said...

This is something that I once thought had an obvious answer - yes. But I have since realised that that is not so. The question "Is there a creator of the universe?" actually doesn't any make sense at all.

It is like asking "How late is the colour yellow"? A non sequitur.

I don't think asking, "Is there a Creator of the universe?" is a non sequitur as a non sequitur is more of a formal argument than it is a yer-no formulated question. A non sequitur usually occurs when the premise and conclusion of an argument are totally unrelated but appear to be used as if they were related. Of course the color yellow cannot be "late," so in a way I can see that being a type of non sequitur but it doesn't at all compare to the creator question because if there exists a Creator who did in fact create the universe, then the Creator and the created universe are in relation, unlike the color yellow being late.

There are two reasons for this. First up, by definition the universe is all that exists. A creator is part of everything that exists. That means the universe must somehow have "created" itself. Absurd.

By definition of what the universe is all that exists? Existence? Are you saying that we do not exist? This first reason is unclear and seems absurd itself.

The second problem comes about by virtue of the meaning of the word "create". Creation is a process of cause and effect. Aquinas famously argued from this that there must be an "uncaused cause" that started everything off. (Of course the uncaused cause is supposed to be god.)

Without time to separate cause and effect the concept of cause and effect (hence creation) becomes meaningless. In other words, the idea that something could create/cause something else without the existence of time is illogical. It is therefore silly to talk about the "creation" of time.

Well without time the concepts of cause/effect cannot even take place. So if God exists timelessly there could have been no plurality of creators that preceded God, which is what Aquinas meant by the "uncaused cause." I can understand your objection that it seems illogical for a timeless God to have created, but allow me to share my thoughts on the issue which hopefully shed some light. Though it helps to note from the outset that the issue of atemporality, time, and creation is really overwhelming and hard to grasp.

On a relational theory of time time is logically posterior to the occurrence of an event. On a relational theory then, God's acting is prior to the existence of time, so all God must do is act and time is generated as a result. Thus with the first creative act time began as a consequence. It's not like God was actively creating all of the universe and it's inhabitants "outside of time," but that God exists "outside of time" and has caused creation to unfold so that becoming "in time" or temporal would be unnecessary. In this way talking about the creation of time is not silly, but it would be a little silly to say that God existed before time or something of that effect as there is no time "before" time.

Now, here's the rub. Einstein discovered that time and space are inextricably linked in four dimensions that have come to be known as spacetime. Without space there can be no time and without time there can be no space. Because there is no time outside our spacetime it is meaningless to claim that our spacetime was "created".

Again time as we know and experience it was not technically "created" (perhaps the reason you are using quotations when referring to created?), time was an effect of the first creative act. Just because time does not exist outside the universe does not mean it is meaningless to say that spacetime was "created," for the same would hold true even if there was no Creator of the universe.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

By trying to apply our understanding of physics to the universe, we cannot hope to refute the creator/creation story.

I beg to differ. The creator/creation story, particularly as it unfolds in Genesis, is eminently understandable by humans. What is more, you take it literally.

[/quote]Once again Argy, I will bring you to the concept of having faith as the key to all understanding. [/quote]

That is absolutely wrong. Faith is belief without evidence. I would say that scepticism and enquiry are the keys to greater understanding. By stating that faith is the key you are effectively saying there is no need for scepticism or enquiry. You put a barrier to the development of new knowledge.

People today have faith in evolutionary science even though it is constantly changing and most of it's tenets can be easily disproven.

Then I suggest you disprove it. I'm sure you will be lauded as one of the greatest Nobel Laureates when you do.

You see, one of the great strengths of science is the fact that it demands to be tested. A scientific theory is NOT a scientific theory if it cannot be disproved, or falsified.

What was once sacred truth in the scientific field is now considered anathema.

Nothing is sacred in the scientific field. All scientific theories are continually being modified and tested. A scientist who can overturn a theory is lauded, not condemned. If Einstein had faith that Newton was correct about the theory of gravity he would not have developed the theory of General Relativity. A religionist who seeks to overturn current thinking is labelled a heretic.

But people would rather put their trust and faith into it than to believe what the unchanging Word of God has said for thousands of years.

There is good reason for that. The Word of God tells a false story about the world.

There is a strong segment of science dedicated to creationism and it can show through other branches of science the absolute validity of the literal creation story.

I can smell a Nobel prize in waiting.

Seriously, creation science relies on ignorance, deceit and misrepresentation. I recall reading an article in a magazine published by Answers In Genesis that illustrates this very well. It said that the scientists who had dated the rocks from the Mt St Helens eruption at hundreds of millions of years old must be wrong. Their reason? Well, "it's obvious", they said. "The eruption only occurred a few decades ago!"

I'm not sure of your contradiction between there being a creator and a creation... the two to me are as logical a coupling as there can be. To say something was created with no creator makes no sense. Once again, our finite minde=s tring to grasp the concepts of infinite knowledge.

Not at all. You seem to accept that the universe is divided into things that need to be created and things that don't. For some reason you put only one object into the latter category; god. But there is no reason that should be so. If god does not need a creator then the universe, of which he is part, does not need a creator.

The question is actually much deeper than simply "why does the universe exist?" The more fundamental question is why is there something rather than nothing. Believers in a creator god are actually in a slightly worse position than non-believers. Those of us who do not believe in a creator god only have to look at the question "why does the universe exist rather than not exist?"

Believers have to answer the question "why is there a god rather than no god?"

 

[Argy Lacedom]

By definition of what the universe is all that exists? Existence? Are you saying that we do not exist?

Of course not. I am talking about all that exists. I am sure that I exist, and pretty sure that you do. We are both part of all that exists. God, if he exists, is also part of all that exists.

Well without time the concepts of cause/effect cannot even take place. So if God exists timelessly there could have been no plurality of creators that preceded God,

Now you are descending into grammatical nonsense. You are running into a shortcoming of the English language. How can one thing "precede" another if there is no time?

And your logic is faulty anyway. If there can be one creator there can be more than one, surely?

I can understand your objection that it seems illogical for a timeless God to have created, but allow me to share my thoughts on the issue which hopefully shed some light. Though it helps to note from the outset that the issue of atemporality, time, and creation is really overwhelming and hard to grasp.

It is not just hard to grasp, it is impossible.

On a relational theory of time time is logically posterior to the occurrence of an event.

You must be using a different definition of the word posterior to the one I am familiar with. Care to elaborate?

On a relational theory then, God's acting is prior to the existence of time,

Nonsense. Without time there can be no "prior".

It's not like God was actively creating all of the universe and it's inhabitants "outside of time," but that God exists "outside of time"

That begs the question. How can an act of creation occur if time does not exist?

Again time as we know and experience it was not technically "created"

Then you concede that there is more than one thing that did not need to be created.

Just because time does not exist outside the universe does not mean it is meaningless to say that spacetime was "created,"

Yes it does. Perhaps you need to invent a new word. The normal meaning of the word create does not cover it.

for the same would hold true even if there was no Creator of the universe.

I agree. But of course, I do not think there necessarily needs to be an act of creation for things to exist. And I suspect that you think the same. If you didn't you would believe your god needed a creator.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Argy, you are not here seeking answers, you are trying to be right. I can give you a link to a book that was written that very sufficiently debunks evolution using the very words of evolutions proponents, but I doubt you would even read it. The science is not as 'scientific' as you would think. Whenever a theory is untenable, the evolutionists have to create another theory to keep the game going.

Anyway, I'll give you the link in case you ever want to check it out...

http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads/Evolution CruncherP.pdf

 

[elopez]

Of course not. I am talking about all that exists. I am sure that I exist, and pretty sure that you do. We are both part of all that exists. God, if he exists, is also part of all that exists.

How you worded it was confusing as you simply stated the universe is all that exists, implying that that is the only thing in existence. So, now having clarified that can you explain how this would mean that the universe must have created itself? None of that logic seems to follow.

Now you are descending into grammatical nonsense. You are running into a shortcoming of the English language. How can one thing "precede" another if there is no time?

And your logic is faulty anyway. If there can be one creator there can be more than one, surely?

Hence why I used quotations marks with the word "precede." I do not literally mean there can be a moment "before" time, but mean that as a manner of speaking. The best way I've heard it put was that God existed causally prior to time.

Just because there is one Creator I do not see how that would imply there is another creator or multiple creators, especially if there could not have been another creator to cause God's existence.

It is not just hard to grasp, it is impossible.

If it was impossible you wouldn't even be asking questions for me to respond to.

You must be using a different definition of the word posterior to the one I am familiar with. Care to elaborate?

I don't think I am. You are still objecting to God acting without time which I understand.

Nonsense. Without time there can be no "prior".

Again this is meant to be taken as a facon de parler (manner of speaking) rather than literally, again hence the quotations. See an infinite regress of events is impossible, and without events time does not exist. God existed timelessly without the universe as He is eternal and has always existed.

That begs the question. How can an act of creation occur if time does not exist?

That's what is beyond our comprehension of the eternalness of God. If God 'created' time then He is not subject to it. God is above and beyond time as He existed without it.

Then you concede that there is more than one thing that did not need to be created.

Well I believe time was generated as a consequence of the first creative act, so to me that is still saying time was "created," just not in the normal sense how we would define it as someone making something with substance.

Yes it does. Perhaps you need to invent a new word. The normal meaning of the word create does not cover it.

I'm not sure why you broke my quote into two separate ones as it creates more confusion. I've said that just because time does not exist outside the universe it does not necessarily mean it is meaningless to say that time was created, to which you seem to disagree with in this part of the quote but in the bottom part you say you do agree with.

I agree. But of course, I do not think there necessarily needs to be an act of creation for things to exist. And I suspect that you think the same. If you didn't you would believe your god needed a creator.

Though I assume you agree here simply because you think that if I do not believe there needs to be no act of creation for the universe to exist, then that means I think God would need a creator. There needs to be an act of creation for the universe to exist because the universe has not always existed. Some type of action needs to occur for the universe to exist. It is different with God because He did not begin to exist but has always existed without the universe.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Argy, you are not here seeking answers, you are trying to be right. I can give you a link to a book that was written that very sufficiently debunks evolution using the very words of evolutions proponents, but I doubt you would even read it. The science is not as 'scientific' as you would think. Whenever a theory is untenable, the evolutionists have to create another theory to keep the game going.

Anyway, I'll give you the link in case you ever want to check it out...

http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads/Evolution%20CruncherP.pdf

Well. What can I say?

I guess the best thing is to repeat what I've said elsewhere. Creation science relies on ignorance, deceit and distortion.

The first passage I looked at was Chapter 2, page 68...

Evolutionary scientists tell us that it all came from
nothing. Yes, nothing.
​

What an absolutely absurd suggestion. Evolution is not a theory that says something comes from nothing. It is a theory that describes the diversity of life on this planet. It says that all life on the planet is subject to the following three part process:-

1. Heredity
2. Variation
3. Selection

It says nothing about the origins of the universe. Nor, in fact, does it say anything about the origins of life itself. That is a separate theory of abiogenesis.

On the very next page it says...

It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space (“frictionless,” so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.

​

What absolute and utter crapp. "Decided to pack together"??? "Frictionless space"??? Whoever wrote that is either pig ignorant or a blatant liar. Worse. Whoever wrote it failed in their basic responsibility to read and understand the theory before trying to summarise it. One can only imagine the contempt in which he holds his audience of scientifically illiterate readers.

How about this (page 164)...

since there was no proof that evolution had occurred in the past and there was no evidence of it occurring today, they would need to postulate long ages as the means by which it somehow happened!
​

No proof? See Evolution in a Petri Dish.

The entire Chapter 6 is devoted to debunking dating methods. If they are all inaccurate why do they all produce the same results?


I could go on, but I would probably only get myself much more upset than I am now about the blatant lies and ignorance exhibited in the book. I had the impression that you were not so ignorant that you would be mislead by such an abomination.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Believe what you will Argy... but why come onto a creation believing, faith based forum if you are set in your beliefs and have no desire to see things differently than you currently do? Are you trying to prove yourself superior to us ignorant Bible believing Christians? I pray that the Lord is able to soften your heart before it is too late...

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Believe what you will Argy... but why come onto a creation believing, faith based forum if you are set in your beliefs and have no desire to see things differently than you currently do? Are you trying to prove yourself superior to us ignorant Bible believing Christians? I pray that the Lord is able to soften your heart before it is too late...

Why wouldn't we have discussions with those who view things differently -- not for the purpose of adopting their POV or to change their minds -- but to see what we can learn about ourselves. Personally, I find it valuable.

Also, why would I focus un the unseen hearts of complete strangers? Seems my own heart is the logical first place to start.

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Are you trying to prove yourself superior to us ignorant Bible believing Christians?

Superiority has nothing to do with it. Truth, honesty and integrity are the touch stones I work to.

You asked me to consider a book that you claimed debunked evolution. I found it appalling. It is full of deceit, distortion and ignorance. It is a rant. It conflates evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, genetics and biochemistry.

It beggars belief that any person could write such a transparently erroneous book without knowing that it was wrong on so many levels. At the very least it casts the writer as seriously lacking in comprehension skills. At worst it damns him as a liar.

It is an indictment on the education system that a person such as yourself could complete his schooling without the basic tools to enable him to see just how deceitful that book is. I suspect you went to an SDA school, no? I suspect you have no training in the hard sciences, no? The person who wrote that book has clearly preyed on your ignorance.

_

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Truth, honesty and integrity are the touch stones I work to.

I suspect that many of us -- including ECR -- aspire to such things. Although I am no longer a Seventh-day Adventist, I don't question their sincerity, honesty or integrity. Many people claim to aspire to truth and yet so many seem to misunderstand -- myself included.

I suspect you went to an SDA school, no?

Not sure whether this is true for ECR. However, I can confirm that I went through the SDA education system and then ultimately taught in its schools as a professional.

I suspect you have no training in the hard sciences, no?

Sadly, the public education system presents only one of the available theories. As a student in SDA schools, I had the benefit of learning about multiple theories, including evolution. I learned about genetics, chemistry and other "hard sciences."

I'm not writing in support of the book for I've never read it. However, I'm not sure why you would assume that SDAs do not have receive training in the "hard sciences." What has been your interaction with SDA schools to date?

BFA

 

[Stryder06]

Isn't this situation a kin to the whole "Can God create a rock that He couldn't move/lift"?

All I know is that "In the beginning God..."

The same God that walked on water, spoke life to the dead man, silenced the storm, and resurrected Himself, is of course beyond "logic"

My way's are not your ways, neither are My thoughts your thoughts. For as the heavens are higher then the earth, so are my ways higher then your ways, and my thoughts, then your thoughts.

Trying to apply our understanding of the "natural order of things" to God is like expecting an infant to understand...well anything. It's really that simple.

 

[OntheDL]

In this thread ... http://www.christianforums.com/t7550830/ tou2009, wondered whether they might join the SDA church and said...

This is something that I once thought had an obvious answer - yes. But I have since realised that that is not so. The question "Is there a creator of the universe?" actually doesn't any make sense at all.

It is like asking "How late is the colour yellow"? A non sequitur.

There are two reasons for this. First up, by definition the universe is all that exists. A creator is part of everything that exists. That means the universe must somehow have "created" itself. Absurd.

The second problem comes about by virtue of the meaning of the word "create". Creation is a process of cause and effect. Aquinas famously argued from this that there must be an "uncaused cause" that started everything off. (Of course the uncaused cause is supposed to be god.)

Without time to separate cause and effect the concept of cause and effect (hence creation) becomes meaningless. In other words, the idea that something could create/cause something else without the existence of time is illogical. It is therefore silly to talk about the "creation" of time.

Now, here's the rub. Einstein discovered that time and space are inextricably linked in four dimensions that have come to be known as spacetime. Without space there can be no time and without time there can be no space. Because there is no time outside our spacetime it is meaningless to claim that our spacetime was "created".

The space (three dimensions) and time give us four dimensions.

It boggles our mind to comprehend beyond 4 dimension. But here is an example:

If you were to look for a file, it's located in a building on avenue 'a', intersects with street 'one'; and it's on the 5th floor, in room #7, cabinet #2 and in the 1st drawer. There are 6 dimensions in this example.

Science has proven there are at least 10 dimensions beyond time and space. So for us to say since we operate in 4 dimensions, therefore that must apply to God also, that limits God to our understanding. That's not even being scientific about it.

There is plenty of evidence of creation on earth and in the universe. If you are open minded about it, you can watch these lectures about creation vs evolution, presented by a scientist.

Browse Media - Science - Amazing Discoveries TV

I grew up an atheist and believed in evolution and hold decrees in applied mathematics. However I found the invisible God in my heart. It's about a personal experience of encountering.

Here is the bottom line at the end of the day:

If there is no creator, then we are here by accident, by chance. There is no meaning, no purpose to our lives. When we die we will be forgotten, or at best be the link to the next evolutionary process. Sad, lonely and no hope? Surely. That's how I felt when I was an atheist.

On the other hand, there is a creator who created the earth for our pleasure, for our benefit. And he created us to best reflect him and his character. And he knows everyone of us by name even long before we were born. And he died for us, so we can forever live with him one day and to live and enjoy all he has created in the universe together with him. What better friend can you find?

Use the Pascal wager: you believe there is a creator, in the end if it's false, you lose nothing. But if it's true and you didn't believe, you lose everything.

Use the statistical term if you are into science, the expected value of unbelieving person is zero. For a believing person, however small the possibility of the things promised in the bible, the expected value is infinitely larger than zero.

So that's our choice.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

I suspect that many of us -- including ECR -- aspire to such things. Although I am no longer a Seventh-day Adventist, I don't question their sincerity, honesty or integrity. Many people claim to aspire to truth and yet so many seem to misunderstand -- myself included.

You are correct, of course. I don't doubt the sincerity of most believers. I think their church's have let them down. The SDA and other creationist congregations have dug themselves into a hole in which they believe that only a literal interpretation of the bible can be tolerated.

In some respects they are correct. For example, if there was no original sin and Genesis is only an allegory then there is no need for an actual blood sacrifice - an allegorical one would suffice.

Sadly, the public education system presents only one of the available theories.

That is incorrect. I went to a secular school and learned of such things as the Lamarckian theory of descent and the theory of Pierre Maupertuis.

What alternative theories are you talking of? I suspect they are not scientific theories, but religious dogma.

I'm not writing in support of the book for I've never read it. However, I'm not sure why you would assume that SDAs do not have receive training in the "hard sciences."

I presumed that because of the response I got from from ECR and his acceptance that the book he linked us to debunked the idea of evolution. It was rich in totally erroneous assertions about hard sciences like chemistry, physics and genetics that anyone educated in even their basics would easily see through.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Science has proven there are at least 10 dimensions beyond time and space.

That is incorrect. It is speculation that has arisen from studies in the field of string theory. There are various versions of it including those that speculate there are seven, nine and eleven dimensions.

There are other speculations that have recently gained more credibility including quantum gravity. I understand that this overcomes many of the difficulties of string theory and still requires only four dimensions.

So for us to say since we operate in 4 dimensions, therefore that must apply to God also, that limits God to our understanding. That's not even being scientific about it.

The idea of god (at least as put forward by believers) is not scientific to start with. Science relies on falsifiability and testing. Believers define their various gods in such a way that they cannot be tested. This is not the fault of science.

There is plenty of evidence of creation on earth and in the universe. If you are open minded about it, you can watch these lectures about creation vs evolution, presented by a scientist.

Browse Media - Science - Amazing Discoveries TV

I watched the first video up to the point where the lecturer made his first deceits. I call them deceits because he either did this deliberately, or by not preparing himself enough to understand what he was talking about.

He said two things that were wrong...

1. He stated that the cosmological principal required that the distribution of matter in the universe was uniform. That is entirely wrong. He either misunderstands the cosmological principal or deliberately distorted it to suit his purposes. The distribution of matter in the universe is exactly as we would expect it to be if the big bang theory were correct.
2. He also described the big bang as an explosion and tacitly lead his audience into the notion that the universe was exploding into something (a distortion common to the book that ECR linked me to). The big bang is not a description of the fact that the stars are expanding into something, but the fact that the universe is getting larger. (An alternative description is that our measuring sticks are getting shorter - the physics is the same).

I grew up an atheist and believed in evolution and hold decrees in applied mathematics. However I found the invisible God in my heart. It's about a personal experience of encountering.

Then you must agree that your god is very selective about who he reveals himself to be. I was once a believer but found belief beginning to fade. At that time I desperately prayed to god to make me anything he wanted me to be. I am now an atheist.

Here is the bottom line at the end of the day:

If there is no creator, then we are here by accident, by chance. There is no meaning, no purpose to our lives. When we die we will be forgotten, or at best be the link to the next evolutionary process. Sad, lonely and no hope? Surely. That's how I felt when I was an atheist.

On the other hand, there is a creator who created the earth for our pleasure, for our benefit. And he created us to best reflect him and his character. And he knows everyone of us by name even long before we were born. And he died for us, so we can forever live with him one day and to live and enjoy all he has created in the universe together with him. What better friend can you find?

I am sad for you that you can't find purpose in life without the idea of a creator. When I jettisoned the idea I became liberated and found new joy in the immediacy of life.

Use the Pascal wager: you believe there is a creator, in the end if it's false, you lose nothing. But if it's true and you didn't believe, you lose everything.

Use the statistical term if you are into science, the expected value of unbelieving person is zero. For a believing person, however small the possibility of the things promised in the bible, the expected value is infinitely larger than zero.

So that's our choice.

Pascal's wager assumes that there is zero cost to false belief and an infinite payoff for correct belief. That is not true. False belief has lead people to reject scientific theories like evolution, to reject medical advancements such as blood transfusions and to martyr themselves as suicide bombers.

There is an infinite variety of belief to be had, but there is no means of determining which one, if any, is correct. The statistical chance of any one of us choosing the correct one is infinitesimally small.

If it makes you feel good and you do no harm to others or yourself then I see no reason in not believing. I object to religions, like SDA, that reject reality in favour of a deceitful world view.

_

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I object to religions, like SDA, that reject reality in favour of a deceitful world view.

Then what are you doing in our room fellowshipping with us deceivers... what is your agenda?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

What alternative theories are you talking of? I suspect they are not scientific theories, but religious dogma.

With this comment, you seem to reject outright the science behind the creation perspective -- perhaps without ever exploring it??? {I may be wrong} You have the freedom to do so of course, but it doesn't negate the fact that there is compelling support for creationism. I was raised in an environment where many different theories were explored and not just the one that you favor or the one that I favor.

I'm not here to convince you to view things as I do. However, I do find it ironic that you favor an open-minded exploration of truth and yet you do not seem to support a full exploration of all theories. Have I misunderstood?

I presumed that because of the response I got from from ECR and his acceptance that the book he linked us to debunked the idea of evolution.

Yes. He seems to find agendas where there are none and misses agendas that actually exist.

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

With this comment, you seem to reject outright the science behind the creation perspective -- perhaps without ever exploring it??? {I may be wrong}

I have several objections to the ideas implicit in that question. For one, science is a-religious. In other words, it is an investigation into the natural world without the bias or baggage of religious dogma. There is no need to bring any type of perspective to it whatsoever.

Second, which creation perspective are you talking about? There are hundreds. We have the Rainbow Serpent perspective of the Australian Aborigines, the [FONT=arial,helvetical]Tepeu and Gucumatz [/FONT]perspective of the Mayans, the Chinese one of Pan Gu, the Hindu perspective, etc., etc., etc.. Of all of these the Australian Aborigine's culture is the oldest. Perhaps we should adopt their perspective out of respect?

You have the freedom to do so of course, but it doesn't negate the fact that there is compelling support for creationism.

Support does not equate to evidence. The fact is that Creationism (as practised in the Abrahamic tradition) is not falsifiable. The term "creation science" is an oxymoron.

I'm not here to convince you to view things as I do. However, I do find it ironic that you favor an open-minded exploration of truth and yet you do not seem to support a full exploration of all theories. Have I misunderstood?

I most certainly favour an open minded exploration of truth. But what could be more closed minded than blindfolding genuine enquiry with the demand that it conform to religious dogma?

Also, I think that what you mean when you ask for an open minded approach is that it is open minded to your particular religious prejudice but closed to others. As I alluded to above, would you agree that we should adopt the Mayan creation story as a framework for scientific enquiry? If not why not? Have you examined it and dismissed it? If so, why?

I reject the creationist perspective because it is at odds with what we observe. All the fields of science converge. They support each other and are internally consistent. They give the age of the universe at something like 13.7 billion years. Evolution is a simple, elegant and brilliantly useful tool. It is supported by the fields of anatomy, biochemistry, nuclear physics (dating techniques), genetics, geology, and many others.

I would truly love for someone to develop better theories to describe the diversity of life on the planet, the cosmic microwave background and the distribution of stars. I think most scientists would love that too. In fact, it is through the drive of scientists to overturn existing theories with new ones that we gain a better understanding of our world.

That's what I call open mindedness.

_